PART 3

Attracting Human Resources

A company hires employees to meet its
objectives. First, it has to identify potential
employees and find the ways and means to get
the necessary information to them, taking into
account the requirements of human rights
legislation. Then it has to select those candidates
who best meet its needs.

Page 91
 CHAPTER 4

Legal Requirements and

Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion
All human beings are born free and equal in
dignity and rights.
ARTICLE 1, UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN
RIGHTS, DECEMBER 1948, UNITED NATIONS
All individuals should have an equal opportunity
to make for themselves the lives that they are
able and wish to have, consistent with their
duties and obligations as members of society,
without being hindered in or prevented from
doing so by discriminatory practices based on
race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion,
age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status,
family status, disability or conviction for an
offence for which a pardon has been granted.
SECTION 2, CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
Page 92

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
1. LO1Explain how HR determines the federal and provincial employment
and labour standards that apply to various workers.
1. LO2List the groups who are protected from discrimination under
the Canadian Human Rights Act.
1. LO3Describe the purpose of equity legislation.
1. LO4Describe the purpose of privacy legislation.
 1. LO5List various types of employment policies that organizations may
adopt.
1. LO6Define harassment and the role that HR plays in addressing it.
1. LO7Describe the strategic importance of diversity for Canadian workplaces.
1. LO8Discuss a diversity perspective versus an inclusion perspective.
Canada has a series of laws that affect the employment of workers. It
may be useful to think of these laws like a building with supporting
pillars and a ceiling. Figure 4-1 shows that some of these laws can be
thought of as foundational pillars that define the minimum standard for
treatment of Canadian workers, such as minimum wage, minimum
vacation days, and protecting employee personal information. Three
types of pillar legislation exist at both federal and provincial levels:
employment and labour standards, human rights legislation, and privacy
legislation.
FIGURE 4-1

Grouping Canadian Employment Legislation

Referring back to the building analogy in Figure 4-1, a second series of
employment legislation can be grouped into the ceiling. Recognizing that
healthy organizations will not provide only the minimum treatment to
employees, the ceiling begins to guide the ideal treatment of employees
within a workplace and how to address issues when they do arise. In
some cases, organizations may be legally required to have policies in
specific areas. For instance, organizations in Ontario are required to have
policies on workplace violence and harassment;1 each organization will
have to write out and adopt its own policy on how it will address
instances of violence and harassment. In other cases, HR writes and
adopts a policy to guide best practices that may not be legally required.
For instance, an organization may write a policy for working alone to
enhance worker safety.

This chapter will focus on compliance with government legislation and

explain employment-related laws that guide HR actions. The chapter
also addresses how HR can build and implement policies to promote
healthy, safe, and inclusive workplaces. Finally, the chapter discusses
diversity, equity, and inclusion and their strategic importance to
Canadian firms.

Which Employment Laws

LO1
Apply?
To ensure that the organization is compliant with employment
legislation, the first step for HR is to determine which laws apply to the
organization. Three questions can guide HR regarding the laws to abide
by.
Question 1 Is the person an employee of the company or an independent
contractor?
Employees are governed under employment standards and have the
right to vacation pay, statutory holidays, overtime pay, and notice or
severance pay in lieu of notice upon termination, and the right to collect
employment insurance benefits2 (discussed in Chapter 10). An
independent contractor, however, is governed solely by the contract they
sign with the employer. Determining whether someone is an employee or
 an independent contractor depends on the level of employer control, who
owns the tools used, and whether the worker has the opportunity for
profit and risk of loss. Figure 4-2 provides guidance on how HR can
determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent
contractor.

FIGURE 4-2

Is a Worker an Employee or an Independent Contractor?

If a worker has signed a contract—and does not rely on the employer to

set hours and assign the work to be done, owns their own tools and
equipment, and has the opportunity for profit and risk of loss—then the
worker is likely an independent contractor.
Question 2 Is the organization provincially or federally regulated?
Page 94
Federal employment laws cover the approximately 10 percent of
Canadian employees who work in federally regulated industries. These
industries include communications, interprovincial or international
transportation, banks, postal service, and the federal government.
The Canada Labour Code covers the minimum employment standards
(e.g., minimum wage, termination provisions) that must be given to all
employees in federally regulated industries. It also applies to businesses
in the territories and on First Nations reserves, and to certain Crown
corporations.
The other 90 percent of all employees fall under provincial legislation,
and the employment laws of the province the employee works in would
apply. Each province has a pair of provincial employment regulations—
one for unionized and one for nonunionized employees—that guide the
minimum employment standards of workers.

Question 3 Is the employee unionized or nonunionized?

Each province has its own employment standards act or code that
defines the minimum standards for wages, vacation days, and
termination provisions for nonunionized employees. The workplace
standards of each province along with a comparison between provinces
can be found at workplace.ca/laws. Unionized employees, on the other
hand, are covered under each province’s labour laws. These labour
relations acts set rules for how unions and employers will organize and
collectively bargain to determine the minimum employment standards.
Information about the labour relations act for each province can be
accessed at canadianlabourrelations.com/canadian-labour-laws.html.
Finally, some employees are exempt from many employment laws. These
vary by province and may include farmers, municipal police, inmates,
politicians, temporary election workers, and family members working in
a family business.
In sum, there are many different sets of legislation, and the particular
laws that apply to a worker and their organization depend on the
industry, status as an employee (vs. independent contractor), and
whether or not the worker is part of a union. HR navigates to the laws
that correspond to their employees and then seeks to ensure that the
organization is minimally compliant.
LO2Human Rights
Legislation
Usually, employment-related laws and regulations are limited in scope;
their impact on HR is confined to a single HR activity. For example,
minimum-wage laws specify the lowest amount an employer can pay for
each hour worked; in spite of their importance, these laws affect only the
compensation management function. Human rights legislation, however,
is an exception in that it affects nearly every HR function: planning,
recruiting, selection, training, compensation, and labour relations.
Page 95

Human rights legislation is about not treating any Canadians differently

because of their membership in a protected group. What constitutes
membership in a protected group was defined in an extremely important
piece of legislation: the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms3 (which is part of
the Constitution Act of 1982), fundamental rights including the following
were provided to every Canadian:
• Freedom of conscience and religion
• Freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including
freedom of the press and other media of communication
• Freedom of peaceful assembly
• Freedom of association
Implications of the Charter to HR and industrial relations issues are still
unfolding. This is because of how the court system operates in
Canada.4 When a person or group challenges that their rights were
infringed upon, the dispute may be settled through a dispute resolution
process, it may be heard by an administrative board or tribunal, or it
may end up in court. The courts interpret and apply the Constitution, as
well as legislation passed by both the federal and provincial levels of
government. They also develop and apply the common law (i.e.,
precedents set from previous cases). Each province and territory has
lower courts, which are the first to hear a case and make a ruling. The
case may proceed to provincial higher courts, through courts of appeal,
and ultimately may reach the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only
hears cases of public importance or of national significance and is the
ultimate interpreter of the Charter.
Section 1 of the Charter guarantees rights and freedoms “subject only to
such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified
in a free and democratic society.” Of course, such adjectives as
“reasonable” and “demonstrably justified” will lead to different
interpretations by different judges. This is one of the reasons why many
cases wind their way through the judicial system up to the Supreme
Court, just to get a final opinion. Every time a court invokes one of the
rights or freedoms, it must determine if the infringement is justified.
Section 2 of the Charter guarantees freedom of association, a very
important aspect in industrial relations, especially for unions. A key
question in this context is whether the freedom to associate carries with
it the right to bargain collectively and the right to strike, which are the
main reasons for the existence of unions.
Section 15—the equality rights part—came into effect on April 17, 1985,
having been delayed to allow the federal government and the provinces
to create or change laws to ensure compliance with the Charter. It states
in its first paragraph:
Every individual is equal before the law and under the law and has the
right to the equal protection and benefit of the law without
discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race,
national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical
disability.
This section of the Charter was expected to—and has—caused a flood of
litigation. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies only to
individuals dealing with federal and provincial governments and
agencies under their jurisdiction, but its impact is far-reaching, since
potentially every law can be challenged.
The Canadian Human Rights Act
While the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality
before the law for every Canadian, human rights legislation seeks to
provide equal employment opportunities and prohibits discrimination
on all prohibited grounds.5 The Canadian Human Rights Act governs
federally regulated employees, whereas provincial human rights
laws govern provincially regulated employees. Both the provincial and
the federal human rights bodies of legislation exist to provide equal
employment opportunity for members of protected groups and to
prevent discrimination. Figure 4-3 summarizes these two layers of
employment laws.
Page 96

Type Source Objectives and

Jurisdiction
Federal Passed by Parliament and To ensure equal
law enforced by federal Canadian employment
Human Rights opportunities with
Commission/Tribunal employers under federal
jurisdiction
Provincial Enacted by provincial To ensure equal
law governments and enforced by employment
provincial human rights opportunities with
commissions/tribunals employers under
provincial jurisdiction
FIGURE 4-3

Types, Sources, Objectives, and Jurisdiction of Canadian Human Rights

Legislation
Table Summary: Summary

Figure 4-4 compares federal and individual provincial human rights

legislation as to different grounds of discrimination prohibited in
employment. While discrimination in the provision of services is also
prohibited, the grounds are often very similar to employment and are not
provided in the table.
Prohibited Jurisdiction Comments
Ground
Race or Colour All jurisdictions In addition, Saskatchewan
prohibits discrimination on
the basis of “perceived race.”
 Prohibited Jurisdiction Comments
Ground
Religion All jurisdictions Manitoba’s Code and Yukon’s
Act read “religion or creed, or
religious belief, religious
association or religious
activity.”
In addition, Saskatchewan
prohibits discrimination on
the basis of “religious creed.”
Ontario uses the term “creed.”
Nunavut’s Act says “creed
[and] religion.”
Physical or All jurisdictions Quebec uses the phrase
Mental “handicap or use of any means
Disability to palliate a handicap.”
Ontario has prohibition on the
basis of “both current and
previous disabilities as well as
the perception that one may
have or have had a disability.”
Nunavut uses the word
“disability.”
Dependence on All except Yukon and Policy to accept complaints in
Alcohol or Northwest Territories British Columbia, Alberta,
Drugs Saskatchewan, Manitoba,
Ontario, New Brunswick,
Northwest Territories, and
Prince Edward Island.
Included in “handicap” ground
in Quebec.
Previous dependence only in
New Brunswick and Nova
 Prohibited Jurisdiction Comments
Ground
Scotia.
Included in “disability” ground
in the Yukon, Alberta, and
Nunavut.
Age All jurisdictions British Columbia: 19+;
Alberta: 18+; Saskatchewan:
18+; Ontario: 18+;
Newfoundland: 19+; Quebec:
except as provided for by law;
Nunavut: applies with no age
restrictions in the Act.
Sex (includes All jurisdictions Alberta uses the term
pregnancy and “gender”; Manitoba includes
childbirth) gender-determined
characteristics; British
Columbia and Ontario include
breastfeeding; Ontario
recognizes the protection of
transgender persons and
accepts complaints related to
“gender identity”; Ontario
accepts complaints related to
female genital mutilation; in
Quebec, pregnancy as such is
considered a ground of
discrimination; in the
Northwest Territories, gender
identity as such is considered
a ground of discrimination;
Nunavut Act says “sex, sexual
 Prohibited Jurisdiction Comments
Ground
orientation, marital status,
family status, pregnancy.”
Marital Status All jurisdictions Quebec uses the term “civil
status.”
Family Status All except New Saskatchewan defines family
Brunswick and as being in a parent–child
Newfoundland and relationship; Quebec uses the
Labrador term “civil status”; Northwest
Territories have prohibition
on the grounds of “family
status” as well as “family
affiliation.”
Sexual All jurisdictions The Supreme Court of Canada
Orientation read sexual orientation into
the Alberta Human Rights,
Citizenship and
Multiculturalism Act in 1998.
National or All except British Saskatchewan and Northwest
Ethnic Origin Columbia Territories use the term
(including “nationality”; Manitoba Code
linguistic uses “nationality” or “national
background) origin”; Manitoba Code uses
“ethnic background or origin”;
Ontario’s Code includes both
“ethnic origin” and
“citizenship”; Alberta uses the
term “place of origin.”
Ancestry or Yukon, British
Place of Origin Columbia, Alberta,
 Prohibited Jurisdiction Comments
Ground
Saskatchewan,
Manitoba, Northwest
Territories, Ontario,
Nunavut, and New
Brunswick
Language Ontario, Quebec, New Ontario accepts complaints on
Brunswick, Northwest the grounds of ancestry, ethnic
Territories, and Yukon origin, place of origin, and
race; New Brunswick and the
Northwest Territories will
accept language-related
complaints filed on the basis
of ancestry, although it is not
an enumerated ground;
included under “linguistic
background” in Yukon;
Nunavut: no specific mention
in the Act.
Social Quebec, Northwest
Condition or Territories, New
Origin Brunswick, and
Newfoundland and
Labrador
Source of Alberta, Defined as “receipt of public
Income Saskatchewan, assistance” in Saskatchewan;
Manitoba, Quebec, included under social
Yukon, Prince Edward condition in Quebec and New
Island, and Nova Brunswick; Nunavut says
Scotia “lawful source of income.”
 Prohibited Jurisdiction Comments
Ground
Assignment, Newfoundland and Included under “social
Attachment, or Labrador and Quebec condition” in Quebec.
Seizure of Pay
Based on Yukon, Manitoba, Northwest Territories has
Association Ontario, New prohibition on basis of
Brunswick, Nova “political association.”
Scotia, Northwest
Territories, Nunavut,
and Prince Edward
Island
Political Belief Yukon, Newfoundland Newfoundland and Labrador
and Labrador, British has prohibition on basis of
Columbia, Manitoba, “political opinion”; Manitoba
Quebec, Nova Scotia, Code includes political activity
Prince Edward Island, and political association.
New Brunswick, and
Northwest Territories
Record of Yukon, Manitoba, Manitoba and Yukon’s Acts
Criminal British Columbia, read “criminal charges or
Conviction Quebec, Ontario, and criminal record”; Ontario has
Prince Edward Island prohibition on basis of “record
of offences”
Pardoned Federal, Yukon, Ontario has prohibition on
Conviction Ontario, Nunavut, and basis of “record of offences”
Northwest Territories
FIGURE 4-4

Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination in Canada (Employment)*

Table Summary: Summary
SOURCE: Based on data from Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion (2018, January), Overview of Human
Rights Codes by Province and Territory in Canada, https://ccdi.ca/media/1414/20171102-publications-
overview-of-hr-codes-by-province-final-en.pdf

Discrimination Defined
Collins English Dictionary defines discrimination as “the practice of treating
one person or group of people less fairly or less well than other people or
groups.” What grounds of discrimination occur most frequently? When
examining the annual reports of the various human rights
commissions/tribunals, the ground alleged most frequently is
discrimination on the basis of disability (alleged in about 52 percent of
claims), 20 percent were based on sex, 27 percent on national or ethnic
origin, and 26 percent on race. Note that a complainant may allege more
than one ground of discrimination.6

Direct Versus Indirect (Systemic) Discrimination

Normally, intentional direct discrimination on grounds specified in the
human rights legislation is illegal. However, under certain
circumstances, intentional direct discrimination is acceptable. A fashion
store catering to women will be allowed to advertise for female models,
and schools controlled by religious groups are permitted to limit their
hiring to members of the specific faith. This legal discrimination is called
a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR).
Indirect, unintentional, or systemic discrimination takes place if there
is no intention to discriminate, but the system, arrangements, or policies
allow it to happen. Such employment practices may appear to be neutral
and may be implemented impartially, but they exclude specific groups of
people for reasons that are neither job-related nor required for safe or
efficient business operations.
Examples of systemic discrimination include the following:
• Minimum height and weight requirements for employment with
police forces, which make it more difficult for women and
Canadians of Asian origin to be hired
• Minimum scores on employment tests, which discriminate against
distinct groups (e.g., the use of culturally biased intelligence tests,
which tend to screen out a disproportionate number of
minorities)
• Internal hiring policies, word-of-mouth hiring, or the requirement
to submit a photograph with the application form
 • Limited accessibility of buildings and facilities, which often makes
it impossible for persons with disabilities to be employed with
organizations using such places
• Psychological inability of people to deal with persons with
disabilities
• Unavailability of alternative formats or forms of tools (e.g.,
publications in Braille for the blind or telephone devices for
people who are deaf)
• Job evaluation systems that tend to undervalue jobs traditionally
held by women (e.g., give more points to compensable factors
that favour men, such as physical strength, and fewer points to
such factors as dexterity)
• Promotion criteria that favour factors such as seniority and
experience in traditionally male-dominated organizations in
which women have not had the chance to acquire either
• Page 97Page 98Page 99
An organizational culture in which minority groups feel
unwelcome and uneasy, resulting in a disproportionate turnover
rate for such groups
• Lack of explicit anti-harassment guidelines, which allows an
atmosphere of abuse to develop in the workplace
Indirect or systemic discrimination is more difficult to detect and to fight
because often it is hidden and requires a special effort to deal with
effectively. The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has taken
specific steps to define and detect the causes and sources of indirect or
systemic discrimination.
When looking globally, some airlines have a height requirement for flight attendants, such
as being at least five feet tall. Others may have a minimum vertical reach requirement to
ensure that flight attendants can reach high enough to secure overhead bins. Is height a
bona fide occupational requirement for the flight attendant job?7

Case Examples by Protected Group Status

To prevent discrimination, employers must provide employees
with reasonable accommodation up to the point of undue hardship. To
aid in determining what is “reasonable” accommodation and when the
accommodation would result in “undue” hardship, many cases have been
heard before tribunals and courts. In this section, a series of case
examples will be used to highlight the complexity and scope of human
rights legislation and important human rights concepts.

Race and Colour

It is sometimes difficult to see which of these two characteristics is the
actual basis of discrimination; often both are involved. The
discrimination can be intentional or unintentional, subtle or very open:
The Armour Group, a property management firm in Halifax, decided to
change cleaning contract companies, resulting in the layoff of seven
Black janitors at historic Founders Square. The new contractor hired
only one employee from the former contractor—a white janitor. The
Armour Group is alleging that the decision to change contractors was
based on a dissatisfaction with the quality of cleaning services being
provided and said that more than 200 complaints were received. The
seven janitors believe that they were fired after revealing their plan to file
a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination.8
It is important that employers respond appropriately if a human rights
violation is alleged:
Priti Shah, a Winnipeg lawyer born in Canada, was told to “go back to my
own country” by another patron at the Fort Garry Hotel after she spoke
to a server about a problem with her meal. The employer took more than
half an hour to intervene and failed to conduct a thorough investigation
or ask the perpetrator to move to another table. Under Manitoba human
rights law, the employer has a duty not to harass people and also an
obligation to ensure that no one else knowingly harasses people at the
employer’s place of business.9

National or Ethnic Origins

It is also illegal for HR decisions to be influenced by the national or
ethnic origins of applicants or of their forebears. Although
discrimination on the basis of national or ethnic origins may be indirect,
on some occasions there is clear, documented evidence:
Ottawa Valley Cleaning and Restoration was ordered to pay $8,000 to a
foreign-born job applicant after a human rights tribunal found multiple
violations of discrimination based on the applicant’s race, colour, and
place of origin. Among the text messages sent to the applicant, who
during an initial phone call indicated that he was not from Canada, were
“Try learning English you will have better luck I don’t hire foreners [sic] I
keep the white man working,” and “Go file a complaint he will probably
be a white man and he will probably laugh at you and tell you to go
away.”10
Religion
Page 100

A person’s religious beliefs and practices should not affect employment

decisions. An employer has a duty to accommodate an employee’s
religious practices, unless those practices present undue hardship to the
employer.

A Supreme Court judgment forced the RCMP to accommodate its Sikh officers’ religious
requirement to wear a turban at all times. What other uniform accommodations might need
to be made to accommodate a diverse workforce?

The terms “undue hardship” and “duty to accommodate” were examined

in an important decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in a ruling
against Central Alberta Dairy Pool (1990). The complainant worked at a
milk-processing plant. After becoming a member of the Worldwide
Church of God, he requested unpaid leave for a particular Monday in
order to observe a holy day of his church. The request was refused
because Mondays were especially busy days at the plant. When the
employee did not report for work, he was fired. The court ruled that
Dairy Pool had discriminated on the basis of religion. Although the
company had not done so directly, it had an adverse effect on the
complainant due to his religion.
The court did not define “undue hardship.” However, it stated that
relevant considerations would include financial cost, health and safety,
disruption of a collective agreement, interference with other workers’
rights, the size of the operation, problems of morale of other employees,
and interchangeability of workforce and facilities. It found that Dairy
Pool could cope with employee absences on Mondays because of
illnesses. Therefore, it could also accommodate a single instance for
absence due to religious reasons, particularly if the employee had tried to
accommodate the employer.11

Age
The use of age as an employment criterion has also received considerable
attention in the past. Many employers consider that establishing a
minimum or maximum age for certain jobs is justified, although
evidence is rarely available that age is an accurate indication of one’s
ability to perform a given type of work. In recent years, mandatory
retirement in jurisdictions across the country has been abolished. Still,
older workers may be the victims of indirect or subtle discrimination.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta awarded a woman to be
reinstated and be given approximately five years of back pay and
$15,000 for general damages. The woman had not been offered a
contract she was qualified for at age 67. The tribunal found this
constituted age-based discrimination.12
Canadian human rights legislation prevents age discrimination against
anyone aged 18 or 19 or older (and younger in some jurisdictions). While
discrimination against younger workers is notoriously hard to prove
because age and years of work experience go hand in hand, it is age
discrimination not to hire any person specifically because of their age.13

Sex
The Canadian Human Rights Act also prevents discrimination on the basis
of an individual’s sex (often erroneously referred to as gender; the Act
specifically uses the term sex). Consider the following case where the
employer tried to force a pregnant employee to quit her job:
The new owner of a Vancouver sports bar reduced the number of shifts
of a server who was six months pregnant from four shifts to about one
 per week in an effort to get the employee to quit. The tribunal held that
the server was in an inhospitable, discriminatory work environment and
the bar was unable to show that not being pregnant was a bona fide
occupational requirement. Consequently, the server was awarded
$2,000 in lost wages and $7,500 for injury to dignity and self-respect.14
Page 101

It should be noted that the Ontario Human Rights Commission updated

its policy on discrimination on the basis of pregnancy to include
protection for women trying to become pregnant.15 As well, the
Supreme Court of Canada, in Dionne v. Commission scolaire des Patriots,
made it clear that an employer may not discriminate against a pregnant
employee who refuses to work because of a risk to the person’s health
and safety. In that case, Dionne refused to work because her doctor had
advised her that she was susceptible to several harmful viruses and that
her work environment constituted a health risk because children are
frequent carriers of a number of viruses.16
Not only is it illegal to recruit, hire, and promote employees because of
their sex, but it is unlawful to have separate policies for men and women.
For example, it is discriminatory to reserve some jobs for men only or
women only. It is even illegal to apply similar standards to men and
women when such standards arbitrarily discriminate against one sex
more than the other. When standards (such as a height or physical test
requirement) discriminate against one sex (or race, national or ethnic
origin, religion, age, or marital status), the burden is on the employer to
prove that the standards are necessary.
An Ontario Human Rights Commission report entitled Not on the Menu:
Inquiry Report on Sexual and Gender-Based Dress Codes in Ontario
Restaurants is aimed at the issue of some restaurant dress requirements.
In one case, a visibly pregnant server working at a sports bar indicated
that she was uncomfortable wearing the new form-fitting uniform. In
response, the bar reduced her shifts. The Ontario Human Rights
Tribunal awarded the woman close to $3,000 in lost wages and $17,000
for injury to her dignity.17
Spotlight on ETHICS
A Weighty Problem
Most countries do not prohibit discrimination based on a job candidate’s
weight. For instance, in the United States, 49 of 50 states do not include
weight as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Jackson Jefferson III is
the managing partner of a long-established public relations firm.
According to Jackson, a person’s looks and image are of major
importance when hiring a new employee: “Our clients have certain
expectations and we need to meet them. If a person is overweight, there
is no place for him or her in our firm. Also, piercings and tattoos are not
acceptable.” Jill Andrew, co-founder of the Body Confidence Canada
Awards, argues that people are discriminated against based on several
personal characteristics such as height, weight, facial features, and hair
loss, and such individuals are “often not placed in front positions or do
not travel to represent the company.”
Are there circumstances in which employers should be able to
discriminate against people based on their personal characteristics?
A far-reaching Supreme Court decision relating to sex discrimination
concerns the earlier mentioned bona fide occupational requirement. The
case involved a woman who had been employed by the Province of
British Columbia in an elite firefighting unit for more than two years.
In 1994, Tawney Meiorin failed one of several new fitness tests, a 2.5
kilometre run to be completed in 11 minutes, and lost her employment. A
subsequent grievance launched by her union was appealed to the
Supreme Court. The court decided in favour of Meiorin, agreeing with an
earlier arbitrator’s ruling that the government had failed to justify the
test as a BFOR by providing credible evidence that her inability to meet
the standard created a safety risk.18
The court established three new criteria to assess the appropriateness of
a BFOR:
1. Is the standard rationally connected to the performance of the
job?
2. Was the standard established in an honest belief that it was
necessary to accomplish the purpose identified in stage one?
3. Is the standard reasonably necessary to accomplish its purpose?
The stricter rules may make it more difficult for HR to establish and
defend BFORs. However, one report suggests that the promise
of Meiorin—that human rights legislation would take adverse effects
discrimination seriously—is under attack, with intensified efforts to
prevent complainants from going beyond the prima facie stage of
discrimination. According to the report, “For many people with
disabilities, the duty to accommodate, as it is being applied today, simply
does not go far enough to ensure their equality and inclusion in the
world they live in.”19
Page 102

Sexual Orientation
Discrimination based upon sexual orientation is prohibited under
human rights legislation. Consider this case:
Robert Ranger, a gay correctional officer, alleged harassment and
discrimination based on his sexual orientation. While the main
antagonist was a fellow union member, the employer knew the
environment was poisoned and did nothing to accommodate Ranger
when he was able to return to work. Ranger suffered from “profoundly
humiliating homophobic harassment” and eventually went on long-term
disability. He still suffers from anxiety attacks and depression. Ranger
was awarded $53,000 in compensatory damages for the employer’s
failure to accommodate, $244,000 for lost wages, and $45,000 in
compensatory damages for discrimination, harassment, and a poisoned
workplace. In the words of vice-chair Deborah Leighton, “There is no
case before me where the complainant has suffered such extensive
harm.”20
The issue of discrimination against same-sex relationships was
effectively addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999 when it
decided that same-sex couples must be treated the same way as
heterosexual couples. A human rights tribunal ordered the federal
government to extend medical and dental benefits to the same-sex
partners of its employees back in 1996. The same year, the government
amended the Canadian Human Rights Act to add sexual orientation as a
prohibited ground of discrimination. Since then, several Supreme Court
decisions have forced provinces to amend their benefit and tax laws to
include same-sex couples in their considerations.
Former Iraq hostage James Loney says that a Catholic youth camp, where he was on staff,
was ordered to close down because he is gay. Should sexual orientation be allowed to play a
role in staffing decisions in religious organizations?

In one case, a supervising engineer working on a road construction

project was subject to repeated negative comments and emails relating to
his race, religion, and sexual orientation by a foreman also working on
the project but for a different company. The engineer argued that he was
a victim of employment discrimination but the foreman’s company
asserted that the relevant human rights legislation did not apply because
the engineer and foreman were not in a direct employment relationship.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that “the code is not limited to
protecting employees solely from discriminatory harassment by their
supervisors in the workplace … This may include discrimination by their
co-workers, even when those co-workers have a different employer.”21
Still, not all workplaces are safe and inclusive for LGBTQ+ employees:
About one-third of Canadians do not believe that their workplace is safe
and inclusive for gay and lesbian employees (and 45 percent do not feel
the workplace is safe and inclusive for transgender employees). In
addition, more than 85 percent of LGBTQ+ employees would be more
likely to consider working for an organization that is LGBTQ+-
friendly.22
Gender Identity
All Canadian provinces and territories have legislation protecting gender
identity or “gender identity and expression.” In June 2017, the Senate
passed Bill C-16, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender
identity or expression. However, while some countries are introducing
legislation to advance LGBTQ+ rights, there has been a backlash in other
parts of the world (including the United States). Shortly before Bill C-16
was passed, an 18-year-old Malaysian youth was beaten, burned with
cigarettes, and sodomized in his country because he was considered
effeminate. He was brain dead by the time medical personnel arrived.23
Page 103

Service Canada recently issued a directive asking managers and team

leaders to use gender-neutral or gender-inclusive language, and to use a
client’s full name or ask how the person would prefer to be addressed.
Helen Kennedy, executive director of Egale Canada (a national LGBTQ+
human rights organization), supported the initiative and indicated that
“it needs to be accompanied by more awareness training and education
around non-binary and gender-neutral language.”24
The switch to non-binary language began several years ago in the
Canadian Coast Guard, and now their uniform catalogue is keeping pace.
New recruits choose their uniforms based on sizing and fit with
modernized, functional, and gender-neutral styles A and B.25

Marital Status
The idea of what constitutes a family has undergone considerable change
in Canadian society over the course of its history. The Canadian Human
Rights Act spells out quite clearly that any discrimination based on
marital status is illegal:
A Canada Post worker was denied entry into a leadership development
program because of her relationship with a superintendent. The
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that this was discriminatory
based on marital status because the woman could have become a leader
in an area or location that would not have reported directly to her
husband.26

Family Status
A family status case highlights the complexity of discrimination
allegations:
Tina Peternel worked as a scheduler for Custom Granite & Marble Ltd.
When she had one child, she often started work at 10:00 a.m. although
the company had asked her to arrive at 8:30 a.m. Following a maternity
leave, the company insisted that Peternel start at 8:30 a.m. The
employee refused to return to work, alleging that the company
discriminated against her on the basis of family status. The court denied
her allegations, citing: the employee did not show how placing her
school-aged children in a before-school daycare would negatively impact
her family needs, there were several pre-school daycare options available
to the employee in her community and the hours of work requested by
the company were reasonable, the employee failed to participate in the
accommodation process, and the employee was financially secure and
part of a two-parent home who could find other child care
arrangements.27
Some recent human rights decisions relating to family status suggest that
employers may have a duty to accommodate employees with child care
obligations unless such accommodation results in undue hardship. A
number of the cases have dealt with work schedule issues and whether
the employer would adjust the timing of shifts:
In the case of Miraka v. ACD Wholesale Meats, a delivery truck driver
informed his manager that he would need to be off work the next day
because his wife was ill and unable to care for their two young children.
The manager gave him permission to be absent for the day. His wife’s
condition did not improve so he stayed home the day after to care for the
children. However, he did not contact his manager until later that day
because he assumed his manager knew he was home caring for his
children and no one from work contacted him regarding his absence.
Upon returning to work, Miraka suffered a workplace injury and asked to
leave early. His employer responded by terminating his employment,
arguing that Miraka had not made sufficient efforts to find an alternative
solution, such as finding a babysitter. The Human Rights Tribunal found
in favour of Miraka and awarded him $10,000 for injury to his dignity,
feelings, and self-respect. The Tribunal distinguished between long-term
accommodation needs and short-term accommodation such as the need
to care for an unexpected illness of a child.28
However, voluntary family activities (such as vacations or extracurricular
sporting events) appear not to fall under the duty to accommodate.29
Disability
No person should be denied employment or terminated from a job
because of a disability. However, in the 2017 Elk Valley Coal decision
(discussed in Chapter 11), the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the
principle that terminating an employee with a disability is not always a
violation of human rights law.30
The principle of reasonable accommodation has been established. It
means that an employer can be expected to take reasonable measures to
make available a suitable job to a person with a disability if it does not
impose undue hardship on the organization:
Coffee giant Starbucks was sued by a barista in El Paso, Texas. The
woman, who is a little person, was hired on a trial basis and she
requested that she be able to use a stool or stepladder to help her
perform her job. The company decided that using a stool was not
reasonable accommodation considering the work environment and
argued that the woman could represent a danger to customers and co-
workers. The case was ultimately settled with Starbucks agreeing to pay
the woman $75,000 and to provide training on disability issues to all
managers and supervisory staff in its El Paso locations.31
Page 104

The labour force participation rate is about 54 percent for people with
disabilities, and almost 800,000 Canadians are not working even though
their disability does not prevent them from doing so (with about half of
these people having post-secondary education).32
Mackenzie Whitney has a math degree from the University of Alberta but
was working marginal jobs owing to his autism. Eventually, he started
working at Meticulon Consulting in Calgary as a junior tester monitoring
quality assurance. Company co-founder Garth Johnson stated that he
looks for people with autism because they offer unique skills, such as
precision, diligence, attention to detail, and an ability to sustain focus.33
Many organizations have established rigid physical standards for certain
jobs without being able to show that these standards are truly relevant to
the requirements of the job. Some complainants have been refused jobs
when their disability might be a problem in a speculative situation; for
example, a firm might argue that a deaf person would be unable to hear a
fire alarm. Other complainants have been disqualified for jobs not
because they are physically disabled now but because they may become
so in the future.
Being alcohol or drug-dependent can also be interpreted as a disability.
Employees with a dependency on drugs or alcohol must be reasonably
accommodated to the point of undue hardship on the employer. Typical
requirements include providing an employee assistance program or
giving an employee time off to attend such a program. However, an
employer is not obligated to accept long-term absences unrelated to
rehabilitation.34
Recent Ontario legislation addresses workplace issues relevant to
employees with disabilities. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities
Act (AODA) requires employers to make workplaces accessible to
members of the public with disabilities. It is estimated that one in seven
people in Ontario has a disability, and that number is projected to
increase. The Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation requires that
emergency procedures and plans be available in accessible formats if
requested and that employers develop an individualized workplace
emergency response plan for employees with a disability.35
Scotiabank changed its funding relating to accommodation to include
services:
According to Deanna Matzanke, director, Global Employment Strategies
(Diversity & Inclusion; HR Policy & Compliance), at the bank, “A lot of
episodic disabilities (such as multiple sclerosis and chronic fatigue
syndrome) don’t actually need assistive technology or an electronic door.
What they need more often are types of services like a job coach to help
organize the workplace.” About one-third of employers indicated that
their knowledge of how to support people with episodic disabilities was
low. Accommodations for people with episodic disabilities may include
such things as providing flextime, working from home, adjusting work
duties, and providing a private space at the workplace where employees
can rest or take medications.36
Also consider the experience of a Tim Hortons franchisor:
Over the years, Mark Wafer’s Tim Hortons franchises have employed
more than 125 employees with disabilities. Currently, 46 of his 250
employees have a disability (ranging from intellectual challenges to
mental health issues to multiple sclerosis). While more than 15 percent
of Canadians have a disability, there are about 450,000 high school
graduates with a disability (270,000 of whom have post-secondary
education) who have not worked a day in the past five years. Wafer notes
that the absenteeism rate for his 46 employees with disabilities is 85
percent lower than for the 200 employees without disabilities, and
employee turnover is under 40 percent (compared to the 100 percent
norm in the quick-service sector). Moreover, Wafer has never filled out a
workplace safety form for an employee with a disability.37

Pardoned Convicts
The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination against a
convicted person if a pardon has been issued for the offence. A pardon
may be granted by a parole board after five years following release,
parole, or the completion of a sentence:
A person convicted and paroled on a drug offence applied for a job with a
government agency dealing with drug abuse. He was denied employment
because of his conviction. Subsequently, the National Parole Board
granted his request for a full pardon. The government agency
maintained, however, that, pardoned or not, he remained a security risk
and that being without a criminal record was a BFOR of a correctional
service’s staff. He appealed to the Canadian Human Rights Commission,
and after the Commission’s investigation, the government agency
decided that a criminal record would not, in fact, inhibit the applicant’s
ability to meet the requirements of the job, and, satisfied that he was
suitable, offered him the position.38
Page 105

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has also been approached by

persons who claim to have been refused employment on the basis of their
arrest record, even when the arrest did not lead to a conviction. These
persons are without legal protection because the Canadian Human Rights
Act does not address this type of discrimination. For HR, this does not
mean that all applicants can be asked for their arrest record; it must still
be shown that doing so is relevant to the job. For this reason, the
Commission has advised employers under federal jurisdiction that
applicants should not be asked, “Have you ever been convicted of an
offence?” It is recommended—if such information is legitimately needed
for employment purposes—that the question be phrased as “Have you
ever been convicted of an offence for which you have not received a
pardon?”
Administration of the Canadian Human Rights Act
The responsibility for the administration of the Canadian Human Rights
Act lies in the hands of the Canadian Human Rights Commission
(CHRC). The role of the CHRC is to investigate and try to resolve
allegations of discrimination in employment and the provision of
services within the federal jurisdiction. The CHRC administers
the Employment Equity Act discussed below. The Commission is also
mandated to develop and conduct information and prevention programs,
to conduct and sponsor research, and to report annually to Parliament.
The Commission is not a tribunal and does not rule on cases. If a
complaint cannot be resolved, the Commission may recommend
mediation or ultimately ask the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to
hear the case. Figure 4-5 describes some of the remedies available to the
tribunal in settling a complaint. Should the tribunal find that the
discriminatory practice was maintained purposely or recklessly, or that
the victim’s feelings or self-respect have suffered as a result of the
practice, it may order the person or organization responsible to
compensate the victim appropriately.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has several remedies at its
disposal. For example, it can order a violator to do the following:
• Stop the discriminatory practice.
• Restore the rights, opportunities, and privileges denied to the
victim.
• Compensate the victim for wages lost and any expenses incurred
as a result of the discriminatory practice.
• Compensate the victim for pain and suffering.
• Develop and implement employment equity programs to equalize
opportunity for certain groups that have suffered from
discriminatory practices in the past.
FIGURE 4-5

Remedies for Violations

Table Summary: Summary

A person who obstructs an investigation or a tribunal, or fails to comply

with the terms of a settlement, or reduces wages in order to eliminate a
discriminatory practice can be found guilty of an offence punishable by a
fine or jail sentence or both. On summary conviction, such a person can
be liable to a fine not exceeding $50,000.39
LO3 Employment Equity Act
To ensure effective, efficient, and equitable methods of promoting
employment opportunities, the federal government proclaimed
the Employment Equity Act in 1987. Its intent is to remove employment
barriers and promote equality of the members of four designated groups:
women, persons with a disability, members of visible minorities, and
Indigenous people (many of whom, but not all, prefer the
term Indigenous to Aboriginal although Aboriginal appears in the
legislation). The Act requires employers with 100 or more employees
under federal jurisdiction to develop and submit annual plans setting out
goals and timetables for progress.
Page 106

Virtually every HR function is affected by employment equity plans:

• Human resource plans must reflect the organization’s employment
equity goals.
• Job descriptions must not contain unneeded requirements that
exclude members of protected classes.
• Recruiting must ensure that all types of applicants are sought
without discriminating.
• Selection of applicants must use screening devices that are job-
relevant and nondiscriminatory.
• Training and developmental opportunities must be made available
for all workers, without discrimination.
• Performance appraisal must be free of biases that discriminate.
• Compensation programs must be based on skills, performance,
and/or seniority and cannot discriminate against jobholders in
other respects.
Even when HR specialists know that their intent is not to discriminate,
they must carefully review the results of these HR functions to ensure
that the results are not discriminatory. Otherwise, lawsuits may arise and
the current employment equity plan may need to be revised or scrapped.

Employment Equity Programs

Employment equity programs are a mechanism for improving the
opportunities of a group through the elimination, reduction, or
prevention of discrimination. They are developed by employers to
remedy past discrimination or to prevent discrimination in the
future. Employment equity programs exist for several reasons. From a
practical standpoint, employers seldom benefit from excluding people
who belong to a particular group. To exclude an entire class of workers,
such as women or visible minorities, limits the labour pool available.
Open discrimination can also lead to negative public relations, boycotts
by consumers, and government intervention. To ensure that such
discrimination does not occur, employers often develop equity programs
voluntarily.
It should be noted that mandated equity programs take place mainly at
the federal level—that is, in organizations and industries under federal
jurisdiction. At the provincial level, such programs are implemented
almost exclusively on a voluntary basis. Regardless of the reasons or
goals of such programs, HR groups should adhere to the guidelines here:
• Step 1: Exhibit commitment. No matter how favourably HR is viewed
by others in the organization, the CEO/president of the company
should support the program in writing. Anything less than total
support from top officials raises questions about the sincerity of
the organization’s commitment in the eyes of government
agencies, courts, and employees. To exhibit this commitment
forcefully, company officials may make raises, bonuses, and
promotions dependent upon each manager’s compliance.
• Step 2: Appoint a director. One member of the organization should
be responsible for equity issues. Commonly, the vice-president of
HR is appointed director, although day-to-day implementation
may be delegated to a compliance specialist in HR.
• Step 3: Publicize commitment. An employment equity program is
ineffective unless publicized externally and internally. Outside
the company, sources of potential recruits must be made aware of
the new policy. Organizations should include the phrase “An
equal opportunity employer” on company stationery and in
employment ads to further publicize the policy. Internally, the
practice should be conveyed to everyone involved in the hiring
process. Otherwise, top management may pursue one policy and
lower levels, another.
• Step 4: Survey the workforce. HR needs to know how the
composition of the employer’s workforce compares with the
 composition of the workforce in the labour market. For example,
if the employer’s mix of male and female employees differs
significantly from the labour market from which the employer
attracts workers, it is possible that discrimination has occurred.
When a survey of the employer’s workforce indicates such
differences, the employer may find examples of underutilization
or concentration. Underutilization exists when a company or
department has a smaller proportion of protected class members
than is found in the labour market. Concentration is just the
opposite, occurring when protected class members are
concentrated in a few departments, out of proportion with their
presence in the labour market.
• Page 107
Step 5: Develop goals and timetables. When, through surveys,
underutilization and concentration are found (possibly as
consequences of past discrimination), HR specialists should set
up goals and timetables to eliminate them.
• Step 6: Design specific programs. To reach goals, HR specialists must
design remedial, active, and preventive programs. Remedial
programs correct problems that already exist. Active
programs imply that management goes beyond instructing
supervisors about new hiring policies and waiting for things to
happen. It means going to high schools in areas dominated by
minorities, approaching community leaders in such areas for
assistance, inviting residents to attend information sessions, and
advertising in newspapers or other media outlets accessible to
minorities and special target groups:
In 1985, the law school at Dalhousie University (now the Schulich
School of Law) in Halifax developed an Indigenous Blacks and
Mi’kmaq Initiative to train more Black and Mi’kmaq lawyers. The
program director visits high schools and universities and holds
information sessions at reserves and community centres. An
advisory board made up of law school representatives,
community leaders, and the two student groups assists in
identifying ways to reach the target groups. To date, the program
has more than 150 graduates.40
Preventive programs are more proactive. They involve an
assessment of HR policies and practices. Policies that
 discriminate (such as height rules) or practices that continue past
discrimination (such as hiring exclusively from employee
referrals) must be eliminated.
• Step 7: Establish controls. An employment equity program is likely to
fail unless controls are established. HR specialists and line
managers must perceive their rewards as depending upon the
success of the program. To evaluate that success, monthly,
quarterly, and yearly benchmarks should be reported directly to
the director of the program and to the CEO/president or another
senior official.
In addition to companies or agencies under federal jurisdiction, the
federal government requires compliance with the Employment Equity
Act from any company doing business with the federal government.
Companies with 100 or more employees bidding on contracts for goods
and services of $1 million or more are subject to the employment equity
criteria listed in the Act. Under this policy, companies are required to
certify in writing at the tendering stage of a contract their commitment to
implementing employment equity. Employers will be subject to random
reviews to ensure their compliance with the Act.

Pay Equity
Women aged 25–54 earn about 87 percent as much per hour as male
employees, and the gap has shrunk by about 10 cents since 1981.41 Pay
equity legislation attempts to remedy these inequities. At the federal
level, the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on
sex; it is therefore illegal to pay women less than men if their jobs are of
equal value, a principle known as “equal pay for work of equal value,”
which is discussed in more detail in Chapter 9. Pay equity policy
frameworks exist in British Columbia and Saskatchewan, and pay equity
negotiations with public sector unions exist in Newfoundland and
Labrador. Legislation in Nova Scotia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and
Prince Edward Island applies to public service employees, but only
Quebec and Ontario have laws covering the public and private sectors. At
the federal level, the Pay Transparency Act regulates publication of wage
gap information as part of annual reports.42
In November 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in favour of
female Canada Post workers in a pay equity case that was brought 28
years ago. Originally, about 2,300 employees worked in the affected
classification (office workers), but about 6,000 employees (including
some men) have been in the classification at some point in time. It is
estimated that workers employed in the classification between 1983 and
2002 will share about $250 million. The main issue was whether it was
appropriate for the Human Rights Commission to compare the office
group with a male-dominated group that had some female members.43
The implication for HR is that they must make very sure the wage and
salary system does not subtly discriminate on the basis of sex.

Reverse Discrimination
The use of employment equity programs can lead to charges of reverse
discrimination against employers. The charges usually arise when an
employer seeks to hire or promote a member of a protected group over
an equally (or better) qualified candidate who is not a member of a
protected group. For example, if an employer has an employment equity
program that gives preference to women over men when promotions
occur, a qualified male may sue the employer and claim that he was
discriminated against because of his sex.
Page 108

Charges of reverse discrimination may put HR in a difficult position. On

the one hand, HR is responsible for eliminating concentration and
underutilization. On the other hand, giving preference to members of a
protected class (such as women) raises questions about whether the HR
group is being fair. Although preferential treatment will always raise
questions of fairness, the Canadian Human Rights Act declares
employment equity programs nondiscriminatory if they fulfill the spirit
of the law.

LO4 Privacy Legislation

A relatively newer set of laws in Canada relates to the privacy of personal
information. Canada has privacy legislation to guide the information that
can be collected, stored, and accessed by individuals, employers, and the
government. Personal information is data about an “identifiable individual.”
It is information that, on its own or combined with other pieces of data, can
identify a specific individual. The definition of personal information differs
somewhat under the various privacy laws in Canada, but generally, it can
mean information about:44
• race or national or ethnic origin,
• religion,
• age or marital status,
• medical, education, or employment history,
• finances,
• DNA,
• identifying numbers such as Social Insurance or driver’s licence
numbers, and
• views or opinions about a person as an employee.

Information that is generally not considered to be personal information

includes the following:
• Information that is not about an individual, because its connection to
a person is too weak or far-removed (e.g., a postal code that covers
a wide area)
• Information about an organization such as a business
• Information that has been rendered anonymous, as long as it is not
possible to link that data back to an identifiable person
• Certain information about public servants such as their name,
position, and title
• A person’s business contact information that an organization collects,
uses, or discloses for the sole purpose of communicating with that
person in relation to their employment, business, or profession.
Canada has two federal privacy laws that are enforced by the Office of the
Privacy Commissioner of Canada. The Privacy Act relates to a person’s
right to access and correct personal information that the Government of
Canada holds about them. The Act also applies to the government’s
collection, use, and disclosure of personal information in the course of
providing services such as Old Age Security pensions, Employment
Insurance, border security, federal policing and public safety, and tax
collection and refunds.
The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents
Act (PIPEDA) sets rules for how private sector organizations collect, use,
and disclose personal information in for-profit, commercial activities
across Canada. It also applies to the personal information of employees
of federally regulated businesses. PIPEDA generally applies to personal
information held by private sector organizations that are not federally
regulated, and in all provinces except Alberta, British Columbia, and
Quebec, which have their own provincial privacy legislation.
Generally, HR can ask for and store personal information that relates to
the employment relationship but should refrain from collecting or
storing information that is not directly related to employment.
Employees can also refuse to provide personal information that infringes
on their right to privacy.

LO5 Workplace Policies

Page 109

A healthy organization will not just meet minimum legal standards, but
will also promote a positive workplace through workplace policies.
Having defined HR policies in the workplace should be a principal
objective for every HR group. A set of HR policies for the organization
are often provided as part of an employee handbook or welcome package
for new employees. A 2018 small business survey45 found that 84
percent of businesses provided employee handbooks and formal written
policies and 85 percent required employees to acknowledge receipt of
these policies. Current, ethical, and effective HR policies serve many
purposes:46
• Outlining expectations in the workplace, such as defining
acceptable and unacceptable behaviours and safe work practices
• Meeting statutory requirements, such as having a working alone
policy in Alberta or a workplace violence policy in Ontario
• Outlining how to address complaints, problems, and grievances by
employees

• Helping to protect employees from their colleagues’ poor behaviour

and from misdeeds by the organization
• Helping to train and develop employees in line with the needs of
the organization, and to guide acceptable parameters
• Outlining breaks, vacations, and statutory holidays which may
meet or exceed requirements from employment standards to
eligible employees
LO6 Types of HR Policies
Some HR policies may be specifically needed to meet jurisdictional
legislative requirements, and others may be prudent to create a safe and
productive workplace. HR must develop the policies required by law, and
should consider developing some additional policies that are described
next. HR may choose to develop some or all of these policies or others
specific to their organization’s context.

Harassment Policy
Also called a respectful workplace policy or code of conduct policy, a
harassment policy outlines desired treatment of employees in the
organization, and prohibits harassment and discrimination from taking
place. Provincial or federal regulations may stipulate specific policy
requirements, so it is important to review the applicable laws and ensure
that all components are included.
In short, harassing behaviour may be verbal, physical, deliberate,
unsolicited, or unwelcome; it may be one incident or a series of
incidents. Protection against harassment extends to incidents occurring
at or away from the workplace, during or outside normal working hours,
provided such incidents are employment-
related.47 Specifically, harassment may include the following:
• Verbal abuse or threats
• Unwelcome remarks, jokes, innuendo, or taunting about a person’s
body, attire, age, marital status, ethnic or national origin,
religion, and so on
• Displaying of pornographic, racist, or other offensive or derogatory
pictures
• Practical jokes that cause awkwardness or embarrassment
• Unwelcome invitations or requests, whether indirect or explicit, or
intimidation
• Leering or other gestures
• Condescension or paternalism that undermines self-respect
• Unnecessary physical contact, such as touching, patting, pinching,
or punching
• Physical assault
Harassing behaviour is assumed to have taken place if a “reasonable
person ought to have known that such behaviour was unwelcome.”48
Ostracism, or social exclusion, is a form of bullying and can be overt or
subtle and should be included in harassment policies.49 Cyberbullying is
also a growing concern. A study of employees in 10 countries revealed
that almost 10 percent of employees have had a manager use information
against them that was obtained from a social media site, 53 percent
believe that workplace privacy has been eroded due to social media, and
11 percent have had embarrassing photos or videos taken at a work event
and then uploaded onto social media. Common forms of cyberbullying
include sending unpleasant or defamatory remarks to or about a
colleague and posting negative comments on a social media site about a
colleague’s appearance.50
Page 110

Sexual harassment is usually specifically addressed within a harassment

policy. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal identified three
characteristics of sexual harassment:
1. The encounters must be unsolicited by the complainant,
unwelcome to the complainant, and expressly or implicitly
known by the respondent to be unwelcome.
2. The conduct must either continue despite the complainant’s
protests or, if the conduct stops, the complainant’s protests must
have led to negative employment consequences.
3. The complainant’s cooperation must be due to employment-
related threats or promises.
How common is sexual harassment? A recent Angus Reid survey
revealed that 52 percent of Canadian women report being subject to
sexual harassment at work during their lifetime, and 28 percent indicate
that they have been subject to nonconsensual sexual touching. A survey
by Employment and Social Development Canada revealed that 94
percent of respondents experiencing sexual harassment were women;
men experiencing sexual harassment were usually reporting other men.
About half of respondents reporting harassing or violent behaviour said
that the perpetrator was an individual with authority over them, while 44
percent said that the behaviour was by a co-worker. Although about
three-quarters of people experiencing harassment or violence took
action, 41 percent stated that no attempt was made to resolve the issue.
Employees experiencing harassment or violence were most likely to
discuss the matter with a co-worker (64 percent) or supervisor (58
percent), with only 22 percent talking to an HR professional.51
A study by the NRG Research Group found that about 82 percent of
participants believed that stalking or cyberstalking were examples of
sexual harassment or sexual violence. Other examples included asking
someone on a date more than once after being told no (47 percent) and
greeting someone and telling them they look nice today (5 percent).
About 51 percent of respondents indicated that recent sexual harassment
allegations of high-profile individuals (such as Harvey Weinstein and
Kevin Spacey) have had a very large or somewhat large impact on
reducing the occurrence of sexual harassment at work. In addition, 50
percent of participants were very or somewhat aware of the #MeToo
campaign, and 84 percent of those aware of #MeToo felt that the
campaign was very or somewhat effective in raising awareness of sexual
harassment and sexual violence.52
A landmark case involving sexual harassment was Robichaud v
Department of National Defence (DND), which went to the Supreme Court.
The court ruled that the employer shared the responsibility for the
actions of one of its supervisors, who had sexually harassed Robichaud.
It added that “only an employer can remedy undesirable effects [of
discrimination]; only an employer can provide the most important
remedy—a healthy work environment.” The DND was ordered to pay
Robichaud $5,000 for pain and suffering, to issue a written apology, and
to post the written apology in all DND facilities.53

Attendance, Leave, and Break Policies

Attendance policies communicate employees’ scheduled start times,
procedures for informing their supervisors of unscheduled absences or
late arrivals, and discipline for unexcused absences. Leave policies
should outline the organization’s rules and procedures regarding
holidays, vacation, sick leave, study leave, and any other time-off
benefits. They should also cover leaves required by law, such as isolation
requirements (a new consideration that arose during COVID-19), voting
leave, bereavement leave, and domestic violence leave. Meal and break
period policy communicates the frequency and duration of breaks, and
any additional rules or restrictions relating to them. These policies must
comply with the applicable provincial and federal employment
standards.

Occupational Health and Safety Policies

These policies describe an extensive range of topics in health and safety
from hazards to diseases to ergonomics to emergency procedures. They
outline reporting procedures for work-related injuries and processes for
investigating incidents. Legislation covers policy requirements for each
province, the three territories, and the federal level, although they share
much in common. The applicable occupational health and safety acts will
require employers to have specific policies in place if certain workplace
hazards exist. For example, a hazard communication program will be
required for workplaces with certain chemicals.
Page 1111

Workplace Violence
From threatening behaviour, to verbal or written threats, to verbal
abuse, to physical attacks, workplace violence policies define
unacceptable forms of behaviour in the workplace. A policy on weapons
in the workplace may be included within a workplace violence policy or
exist as a stand-alone policy. These policies need to comply with
jurisdictional laws, which may include posting requirements, listing
specific examples of prohibited violent conduct, and explaining
workplace responsibilities for violence prevention.

Remote Workers Policy

In particular following work-from-home requirements during the
COVID-19 pandemic, more and more employees are working remotely. A
remote workers policy will outline the jobs and workers who are eligible,
any limitations on remote work, and how remote workers will be
monitored. It may stipulate the organization’s ability to end the remote
working, and any specific compensation provisions during remote work
periods. The policy should include check-in procedures for remote
workers working alone.
Technology Use Policy
When the organization owns the technology and computer equipment, it
can choose what is appropriate or inappropriate use of that equipment. A
technology use policy may outline what is acceptable on an employee’s
break time at the workplace, or during off-hours away from the worksite.
These policies outline whether the company-owned equipment can be
used for personal purposes, and describe inappropriate uses on a taboo
list (e.g., pornography, religious webpages).

A technology use policy may also relate to employees’ using their

personal devices—such as phones, laptops, and tablets—for business.
When personal devices are used, issues related to privacy, security,
monitoring, and theft need to be considered. The policy should include
an end-of-employment procedure and any risks or liabilities associated
with using personal devices for work.
Social Media Policy
Page 112

A social media policy will provide guidelines for employees who post on
social media or respond to social media using either work-related social
media accounts or personal accounts. They may address how social
media use is controlled in the workplace, guide treatment of confidential
information, and describe disciplinary measures for policy violations.
The Spotlight on HRM describes considerations for HR when developing
a social media policy.
Spotlight on HRM
Considerations for a Social Media Policy
A social media policy may help organizations to accomplish three things
with respect to employees’ use of social media:
1. Clearly set employee expectations (and reduce confusion). To
generate an effective social media policy, HR may want to
consider outlining multiple groups of social media users within
the organization. For instance, Coca-Cola’s social media policy
differentiates between the online community, company and
agency associates, and company online spokespeople and clearly
 outlines the expectations for each group. For instance, only
online spokespeople may respond to negative comments from
the community.
2. Protect brand reputation, disclosure, and confidential
information. Social media policies should consider adding
transparent disclosure statements. For instance, Intel stipulates
using #iwork4intel when employees make postings about Intel.
Outlining expectations for treatment of confidential information,
trade secrets, and so forth should also be included within a social
media policy.
3. Increase employee engagement and advocacy. Best practices for
social media policies include clearly outlining how employees can
engage through social media and add their advocacy for the
employer. Ford provides a list of 11 social media commandments
that give employees a clear sense of how to use social media.
Some of these include being honest about who you are, making
it clear that the views expressed are your personal views,
keeping in mind that the Internet remembers, and asking when
in doubt.
SOURCE: Bouman, J. (2020, December 22), “Need Social Media Policy Examples? Here Are 7 Terrific Social
Policies to Inspire Yours,” retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://everyonesocial.com/blog/need-sample-
social-media-policies-here-are-7-to-inspire-yours/

Substance Use Policy

Substance use policies are growing in popularity owing in part to the
legalization of marijuana in Canada in 2018. Impairment from substance
use creates lost productivity, increased absenteeism, liability problems,
reduced employee morale, and injury risk for harm to the employee,
other staff, and customers, making it seem that an outright ban on
substances in the workplace might be preferable. However, addictions to
substances are considered to be a disability in Canada. As such,
employers need to think through reasonable accommodation and undue
hardship in their particular work context as part of the policy as well.
The substance use policies may differ based on the potential safety risks
to the employee and others in the work environment (e.g., operating
heavy equipment versus working in an office setting).
A review of workplace substance use policies in Canada by the Canadian
Centre on Substance Use and Addiction54 indicates that the best policies
will make clear that substance use impairment will not be tolerated but
will encourage a supportive environment for workers afflicted by
substance use issues. While substance use policies may include
disciplinary procedures for non-compliance, they should also discuss
treatment, support, and return-to-work programs as supportive
measures.

Confidentiality Policy
Confidentiality policies indicate the types of information that employees
should keep confidential, which may include information about trade
secrets, non-public information, and even information about wages and
working conditions. They should also include the consequences for
violating confidentiality, and provide specific examples of the
confidential material in question.
While the list of HR policies that an organization may develop seems
potentially long and daunting, priority policies to have in place and
communicate about with employees regularly may vary depending on
legislation compliance, industry, and work context of the company.

Other Legal Challenges

This chapter has dealt mainly with employment standards, human rights
legislation, privacy legislation, and HR policies. Of course, there are
many other potential legal challenges, not all of which can be detailed
here. The following are some of these relevant issues, most of which will
be discussed in later chapters:
• The Canada Labour Code. The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of
1907 was modified and re-enacted in 1971 as the Canada Labour
Code. It regulates union certification, the right to organize, union
prosecution, and mediation and arbitration procedures, all of
which are discussed in more detail in Chapter 13. Provincial
equivalents to the code are the employment (or labour) standards
acts.
• Dismissal. According to common law, all employees have a contract
with their employer, even if there is nothing in writing. An
 employee or employer can terminate an employment relationship
by giving reasonable notice (see Chapter 8). An immediate
dismissal is possible if an employee is compensated through
appropriate severance pay (see Chapter 11).
• Minimum wages. These are set by provincial and federal boards and
discussed in Chapter 9.
• Occupational health and safety. The Canada Labour Code also
regulates occupational health and safety issues, discussed
in Chapter 12.
• Weekly rest day. The Canada Labour Code specifies that employees
must be given at least one full day of rest during the week,
preferably on Sunday.
• Workplace Hazardous Material Information System (WHMIS). WHMIS
regulates the handling of dangerous material, discussed
in Chapter 12.
These are some of the federal laws that have an impact on HR. Most of
them have their provincial equivalent. It is ultimately HR that is
responsible for knowing and enforcing the law and for developing
policies to advise on acceptable behaviours and procedures to follow
when issues arise. Involvement in legislation and policy generation
creates three important responsibilities. First, HR must stay abreast of
the laws and the interpretation of the laws by regulatory bodies and court
rulings. Second, HR must develop and administer programs and policies
that ensure company compliance. Failure to do so may lead to the loss of
government contracts, to poor public relations, and to lawsuits by
regulatory bodies or affected individuals. Third, HR must pursue its
traditional roles of obtaining, maintaining, and retaining an optimal
workforce.
Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion in Canadian
Workplaces
Page 113
Within Canadian organizations, HR holds primary responsibility for
diversity, equity, and inclusion. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
campaigned on increasing equitable treatment of women in Canadian
organizations and introduced Canada’s first ethnically diverse cabinet
with equal numbers of men and women in 2015.55 Many recent events—
including the killings of George Floyd and other Black people in the
United States—galvanized growth in the Black Lives Matter movement
around the world.56. In Canada, the uncovering of mass graves at
residential schools has brought new and renewed attention to the
importance of truth and reconciliation work with our Indigenous
peoples.57 Undoubtedly there is a greater focus on and awareness of
diversity, equity, and inclusion in Canadian workplaces than ever before.

Can sports bring people of diverse backgrounds together? The Canadian Football League
(CFL) introduced its Diversity Is Strength campaign in 2017. T-shirts with the Diversity Is
Strength logo also include names of players from diverse backgrounds. Critics of the
initiative argue that the CFL is trying to promote diversity and multiculturalism as a way to
increase business and attract more fans.58
Consider some of these statistics on Canadian diversity:
• According to the most recent census (2016), Canada has a total of
72,880 same-sex common-law couples, representing 0.9 percent
of all couples in the country.59 The number of same-sex couples
increased by 60.7 percent between 2006 and 2016.
• In July 2005, Canada became the third country in the world to
legalize same-sex marriage, after the Netherlands (2000) and
Belgium (2003).
• Some 21.9 percent of Canadians were born outside the country, and
this is expected to increase to 25–30 percent by 2036.
• Nearly 7.7 million Canadians, or 22.3 percent of the total
population, are visible minorities. About 70 percent of visible
minorities live in Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver.
• About 3.8 million Canadians (13.7 percent) reported having a
disability. Women (14.9 percent) were more likely to report a
disability than men (12.5 percent).60
The same person may be diverse along multiple diversity dimensions.
A person can be an Asian–Canadian (race) woman (sex) who is older
(age), married (marital status), and from a low-income family (income
status).
Ensuring that treatment of others is equitable and just regardless of
differences on diversity dimensions is the central goal of diversity,
equity, and inclusion within organizations.

Challenges for Diverse Workers

Historically and currently, members of diverse groups experience
specific challenges in Canadian workplaces owing to their diversity. Four
such challenges are stereotyping, the old boys’ network, the glass ceiling,
and “from pet to threat.”
Recognition of a person’s unique background, capabilities, and
individuality may generate better workplace outcomes. Multiple people
may share commonalities in their background dimensions, but grouping
people can result in stereotyping. Further, the differences between
groups need not be intrinsic or innate; they can be differences attributed
to history or prevailing culture and subject to change.
Google cited a breach of its code of conduct and fired James
Damore after he published a 10-page manifesto referring to women as
more neurotic, prone to stress and anxiety, and agreeable than men, and
less assertive. He also wrote that women care more about work–life
balance and are less status driven than men.61
Of course, these generalizations that all women and all men act and think
and believe in the same manner are simply untrue and based on his
personal stereotype. Although some stereotypes can be positive (e.g.,
about ethnicities who are good in math), there is, in general, much more
difference among people in the same group than between people of
different groups, making stereotyping dangerous.
Page 114

Many women are hindered by lack of access to the old boys’ network,
the set of informal relationships that develop among male managers and
executives.62 The friendships and contacts built through the network
become the basis for assignments and promotions, and the network
becomes the informal communication link that provides vital
information about business from which women are excluded. This
network may limit the number of women who reach positions of power.
A global study by Oliver Wyman revealed that 25 percent of executives at
financial services firms in Canada are female, placing Canada third in the
world behind Norway (33 percent) and Sweden (32 percent) and ahead
of the United States (20 percent). Japan ranked last of 19 countries, with
2 percent of women holding executive roles at major financial
institutions. The Back to Bay Street program, which assists women
returning to the financial sector after taking time off to have children,
was cited as part of a web of support.63
The Canadian Board Diversity Council’s Annual Report Card (2018)
revealed that women held about 19.5 percent of C-suite executive
positions and 24.5 percent of board seats in FP500 companies. Women
were more likely to be on the board of firms in finance and insurance
(33.1 percent), utilities (30.1 percent), and retail and trades sectors (23.7
percent). About 23 percent of board seats in manufacturing and mining,
oil, and gas were held by women.64
Although it is projected that visible minorities will make up about one-
third of the country’s population in 15 years, representation on the
boards of public institutions and agencies tends not to be reflective of the
community. About 95 percent of board directors agreed that board
diversity is very or somewhat important to them (up from 85 percent in
2010). However, 76.1 percent of female directors indicated that board
diversity is very important to them, compared with 52.4 percent for male
directors. When considering diversity of board directors, about 6.2
percent are visible minorities, and less than 1 percent are Indigenous
peoples.65
The existing values, norms, and patterns of interactions among
managers may also act as a glass ceiling that stunts the career growth of
women, LGBTQ+, and visible minorities beyond a certain level.
Promotional opportunities are visible, but invisible obstructions seem to
block the way. The perception of the existence of a glass ceiling results in
frustration, reduced job and career satisfaction, alienation from the
workplace, and ultimately higher employee turnover. However, some
organizations are making major strides in advancing promotional
opportunities for female, LGBTQ+, and visible minority employees.
The City of Saskatoon was recognized nationally as a diversity employer
in 2020. Indigenous awareness training is mandatory for employees and
there is a Truth and Reconciliation Resource Kit for ongoing learning.
Other training initiatives include cultural bridging, understanding
invisible disabilities, and inclusive practices for LGBTQ2S identities.66
Despite the transformation of Canadian cities and towns into
multicultural mosaics, prejudices against visible minorities continue to
exist in the workplace. In addition, the stereotypes faced by women
belonging to specific religious groups prevent them from gaining even
lower-level jobs:
Discriminatory hiring practices and workplace racism toward Muslim
women are common in Toronto, according to a study by Women
Working With Immigrant Women, a nonprofit organization that works
with immigrants. Of the 32 Muslim women surveyed, 29 said that
employers had commented on their hijab and 13 women reported that an
employer told them they would have to take the hijab off if they wanted a
job. The study also included a field experiment where three teams of
applicants—matched in every way except that one wore the hijab and one
didn’t—visited 16 job sites to apply for a job. At more than half of the
sites, the applicant without the hijab was asked to fill out an application
or leave a resumé while the applicant with a hijab was not. At two job
sites, the woman without the hijab was told there was a job available
while the woman with the hijab was told there weren’t any jobs.67
A more recently labelled challenge is “from pet to threat.” A shared
experience by many Black women is that the managers, mentors, and
sponsors who once supported them later undermine them because they
are perceived to be a threat or competition.68 Despite being high
performers, they feel ostracized when people who formerly supported
them withdraw their support. A study by MLT (Management Leaders of
Tomorrow) found that 50 percent of their alumni who were women,
Black, Latinx, and Indigenous peoples felt that a white person who
supported them had later undermined them.69
Page 115

LO7 Strategic Importance of Diversity

Canada’s cultural mosaic raises several challenges for the manager who must successfully
manage a diverse workforce. What advantages and disadvantages would a team made up of
members from different cultures have?

Diversity, equity, and inclusion recognizes that an organization is a

mosaic where employees with varying beliefs, cultures, values, and
behaviour patterns come together to create a whole organization and
where these differences are acknowledged, valued, and accepted. It
assumes that differences among employees can add value to an
organization and that diversity includes all types of differences and not
simply obvious ones such as sex/gender, race, and so on. Also,
organization culture and working environments are key items to focus on
to create diverse, equitable, and inclusive organizations. Several factors
make diversity, equity, and inclusion strategically important.

Changing Workforce
As detailed in Chapter 1 and Chapter 3, the Canadian labour market is
undergoing rapid and continuous transformation. Years ago, the average
member of the workforce was male, white, and approximately 30 years
old, and usually held a high school diploma or lower. These men also
worked within the region of their birth, were married, and had children.
In contrast, today’s workforce is considerably more diverse. Given this
change, diversity, equity, and inclusion is not merely desirable but
mandatory if an organization is to effectively attract, utilize, and develop
human resources.
The Government of Canada is responding to the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action 92 by urging the Canadian
corporate sector to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples as a reconciliation framework and to apply its
principles, norms, and standards to corporate policy and operational
activities related to Indigenous people, their land, and their resources.
This includes but is not limited to:70
1. Commit to meaningful consultation, building respectful
relationships, and obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of
Indigenous peoples before proceeding with economic development
projects.
2. Ensure that Aboriginal peoples have equitable access to jobs,
training, and education opportunities in the corporate sector, and
that Aboriginal communities gain long-term sustainable benefits
from economic development projects.
3. Provide education for management and staff on the history of
Indigenous peoples, including the history and legacy of residential
schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples, treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and
Aboriginal–Crown relations. This will require skills-based training
in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and
anti-racism.
Importance of Human Capital
Changes in production technology have dramatically increased the
importance of human capital. In today’s world of “intellectual
capitalism,” the knowledge worker may be the key to the success or
failure of the firm. Often the departure of even a few key workers can
spell disaster for the firm. The most valuable parts of the firm’s operation
may be reflected in human tasks of sensing, judging, and making
decisions. In today’s information age (and the growing advancement of
artificial intelligence, machine learning, and digitization; see Chapter
11), the importance of human capital is critical.
Page 116

The vast majority of employers believe that they have programs aimed at
the successful integration of foreign-trained employees into their
workplaces. However, a study of 560 professionals who earned their
degrees outside of Canada, but who have been in the country for between
six and 15 years, found that only 49 percent of participants felt that their
workplaces had policies to integrate non-Canadian employees. There was
a perception that employer orientation programs should include more
information on the culture at Canadian workplaces. Less than half of
employers reported having a way to assess whether foreign credentials
are adequate.71

Diversity as a Competitive Advantage

Proactive organizations recognize that competitive strength often lies in
focusing on their employees and their clients. Globalization and
changing domestic markets (demographic changes, immigration, etc.)
mean that a firm’s customers are incredibly diverse. Further, many of the
growing export markets for Canadian firms are located in Asia, Latin
America, and Africa.
“It makes perfect sense that Mercedes-Benz Canada’s corporate strategy
prioritizes diversity: this country’s highly competitive luxury automotive
sector is incredibly diverse, not just in terms of vehicles but audience as
well. In order to thrive, we must continue to bring together people who
are able to provide valuable insights about our organization, customers,
and communities.” —Virginie Aubert, VP, marketing, Mercedes-Benz
Canada Inc.72
Diverse employees can provide insight into how to meet the needs of
diverse customer groups.
Although the great majority of organizations report that diversity,
inclusion, human rights, and equity are strategic initiatives at their
workplaces, a study by the Canadian Institute of Diversity and Inclusion
revealed that only about 19 percent of employers are measuring the
impact, efficiency, or return on investment (ROI) of their diversity
initiatives. In addition, very few employers measure the diversity impact
over an employee’s life cycle.73

Increasing Role of Work Teams

Work teams have always reflected some degree of diversity. Functioning
on an effective work team requires skills to facilitate involving,
understanding, embracing, and valuing multiple perspectives. Valuing
differences can result in improved creativity and innovative problem
solving.
Does diversity matter? Based on a review of research on workplace
diversity and firm performance published in nine leading journals from
2000 to 2009, McMahon found that the relationship was curvilinear—
the effects are stronger in more stable environments and more dramatic
in service industries compared to manufacturing. Diversity alone cannot
explain firm performance—resources, capabilities, and core
competencies are stronger predictors of performance. However, diversity
that enhances these variables is associated with better
performance.74 Similarly, Herring, using data from a sample of for-
profit firms in the United States, found that racial diversity was related
to greater sales revenue and market share, higher relative profits, and
more customers. In addition, gender diversity was associated with all of
the above outcomes except for greater market share.75
Diversity affects all strategies and processes of the organization.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion ties to the strategic plan and involves
every employee across the whole workforce.
LO8Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Initiatives
While diversity may be defined as “all the ways in which we differ,” and
equity refers to treating people the same, inclusion involves establishing
and maintaining work practices and a work environment where everyone
can be fully themselves and make contributions. Many organizations are
now moving from a strictly diversity and employment equity approach
toward leveraging inclusion. One primary reason behind this shift is that
“managing diversity” requires first a label or classification of a person
along a dimension of diversity (for instance, older, female, gay,
Lebanese, transgender). Inclusion leapfrogs this labelling and moves
right into creating practices and conditions where all employees are able
to contribute effectively regardless of their differences.
Page 117

For organizations seeking to move toward an inclusive environment, one

of the first steps is to articulate the ideal future state the organization
would achieve through inclusion. Creating an inclusive culture is not
accomplished merely by stating it within the organization’s vision and
values, but these statements provide guideposts for the organization to
develop practices and conditions toward living inclusion.
A study by the Royal Bank of Canada of 64 major Canadian organizations
revealed that almost 90 percent of participants strongly believe that
diverse and inclusive teams make better decisions, while 66 percent
strongly agree and 20 percent agree that leveraging diverse backgrounds
and individuals is fundamental to their organizational performance. A
bit over half of respondents indicated that they use scorecards to track
annual diversity performance, about 60 percent train executives and
managers on how to manage diverse teams, 55 percent publicly
communicate how the organization is progressing in meeting diversity
and inclusion goals, and a bit over 40 percent hold leaders accountable
for diversity and inclusion results.76
Current policies, systems, practices, rules, and procedures have to be
examined for their appropriateness for an inclusive culture. Included
here are work assignments, recruitment and hiring, onboarding,
training, compensation, employee communication, employee
development, and performance appraisal. As one example, recruitment
practices may need to be revised, as seen in this example:
Shopify, a recipient of the 2018 Employer Excellence Award from Hire
Immigrants Ottawa, launched an Android Bootcamp in 2017. This
program involves reaching out to software developers who are recent
immigrants to Canada, selecting candidates for a 2.5-day Android
Bootcamp, and considering Bootcamp participants for employment.
According to Meghan Herman, “Diversity and inclusion are integral
tenets of Shopify’s culture.”77
Senior management commitment to inclusion is one of the most
important elements of ensuring the success of inclusion efforts; so is
whole-hearted support from the unions. Inclusion efforts will fail unless
all managers and employees see them as an integral part of the firm’s
business philosophy. This means that particular attention should be paid
to communication, hiring, and reward structures to promote inclusion. A
number of managers do not know what their specific role is when it
comes to managing inclusion. According to Siu, “A lot of managers are
saying ‘I know how great diversity is but exactly what can I accomplish to
prove that and align what I am doing with the senior management
agenda?’”78

Many women participate in careers that decades ago were exclusive to men. Still, the glass
ceiling remains. How can it be cracked?

Changes in internal systems and procedures must be communicated to

all members. Information should be provided on what changes will
occur, what the likely results will be, how important these changes are
for the success of the organization, accomplishments up to this point,
and responses to questions related to diversity initiatives. More on
employee communication strategies is discussed in Chapter 11.
For a long time, Canada Post had a very stable and homogenous
workforce. Over time, the organization attempted to enhance its diversity
by recruiting more women, Indigenous persons, and African–Canadians
into its workforce. Today, women account for about 50 percent of its
employees, and 33.3 percent of senior managerial positions are held by
women. Targeted initiatives such as the Progressive Aboriginal Relations
Program helped the organization to attract more Indigenous persons
into its workforce. Members of visible minorities and persons with
disabilities account for more than 20 percent of its workforce. To widely
communicate its commitment to diversity, Canada Post runs special
events such as celebrations around Aboriginal Day or Black History
month.79
Page 118

Unless the firm monitors the progress of the diversity, equity, and
inclusion effort on a systematic basis, corrective actions may not follow.
Monitoring will also ensure that quantitative and qualitative indices of
change are available to the management, the union, and the workforce.
These results should be widely communicated and the gaps between
targets and accomplishments publicized along with the proposed
corrective actions. Indices such as number of hires, promotions,
absenteeism, turnover, salary levels, grievances, harassment complaints,
and so on, are useful for gauging progress, but should not be used
exclusively since qualitative responses from employees may convey other
dimensions of work climate and the intensity of employee feelings. More
progressive organizations make use of diversity and inclusion audits on
a regular basis to uncover the underlying dimensions, causes, and
progress-to-date on diversity, equity, and inclusion matters. A good and
honest survey of employees will indicate how well the organization is
currently doing in terms of supporting inclusion, as seen in the example
below:
Part of RBC’s strategy of diversity is asking employees to examine their
blind spots and banish their mind bugs. RBC’s unconscious bias
campaign is part of the company’s commitment to progress in all areas of
diversity, including women, visible minorities, people with disabilities,
LGBTQ+, and Indigenous communities. According to senior VP Rod
Bolger, diversity has evolved from an initiative seen as “the right thing to
do” to a business strategy conferring competitive advantage to today’s
drive for inclusiveness.80
In terms of diversity, equity, and inclusion, in addition to determining
where an organization currently is, designing HR practices and policies
to support, getting senior leadership buy-in, and communicating about
efforts, there are some other efforts organizations can undertake. Some
of these are discussed next.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Training

Managers and lower-level supervisors need to learn new skills that will
enable them to manage and motivate an inclusive workforce. Often,
outside experts are invited to provide diversity, equity, and inclusion
training programs in organizations. Such training programs help to
create awareness of the bottom-line impact of diversity, equity, and
inclusion and the role of managers, supervisors, and co-workers in
creating a work climate that is comfortable for all employees, irrespective
of their differences.
Experts suggest two types of training: awareness training and skill-
building training. Awareness training focuses on creating an
understanding of the need for managing and valuing diversity, equity,
and inclusion. It is also meant to increase participants’ self-awareness of
diversity- and inclusion-related issues, such as stereotyping and cross-
cultural insensitivity.
Once individuals develop an awareness, they can then monitor their
feelings, reactions, and so on, and make conscious decisions about their
behaviour, often resulting in improved interpersonal
communication. Skill-building training educates employees on specific
cultural differences and how to respond to differences in the workplace.
Often awareness and skill-building training are combined.
In the long run, it is therefore more practical, although more difficult, to
focus on process training; that is, supervisors and employees have to
learn about diversity. Participants in a process-oriented diversity
training program develop an understanding of how management style,
the interpersonal communication process, teamwork, and other
managerial issues are affected by diversity. After such a training
program, participants may not have all the answers, but they will have
plenty of questions.
Alternate Work Arrangements
Often, removal of negative factors can enhance employee performance
and career growth. This is especially so in the case of women who have
multiple and conflicting role demands from work and family, or older
workers who find the traditional work arrangements difficult.
Several alternate work arrangements such as flexible work hours,
telecommuting, extended leave, and job sharing have been used in the
past to accommodate the unique needs of employee groups. These
arrangements are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.
Page 119

Apprenticeships
Apprenticeships are similar to mentoring programs except that they
relate to junior-level or technical jobs and often involve working with
prospective employees before they formally join the organization. Such
programs are particularly useful to attract members of visible minorities,
women, people with disabilities, and other disadvantaged group
members to nontraditional jobs within the firm:
Temisan Boyo, a native of Nigeria with an interest in law, was pretty sure
she would not want to work for a major corporate law firm like Blake,
Cassels and Graydon (Blakes). Boyo stated that she thought it would be
“very white, very male, very formal, and very unaccepting of things that
were not part of the status quo.” However, Boyo became the recipient of
an Equity & Diversity Pre-Law Internship at Blakes and she found out
that the firm was very flexible and more diverse than she had expected.
Blakes is involved in several other initiatives, such as its Indigenous
Summer School program, and supports a number of affinity groups,
including Women@Blakes, Pride@Blakes, and the Diversity and
Inclusion Network.81

Support Groups
Employees belonging to diverse groups that are underrepresented in the
organization may feel lonely and uncomfortable at the workplace.
Sometimes, this might be simply a feeling of loneliness and distance
from mainstream workers. In other instances, the new employee may
even face hostility from other members of the work group, especially
when others perceive that the employee’s group status resulted in
preferential treatment during hiring. Often the result is employee
alienation, which in turn results in high turnover.
To overcome this problem, many organizations form support
groups that are designed to provide a nurturing climate for employees
who may otherwise feel unwanted or shut out. Socialization in such
groups enabled the newcomer not only to share concerns and problems
but also to assimilate the organization’s culture faster.

SUMMARY
The legal framework for Canadian workplaces can be thought of as sets
of legislation to protect the minimal treatment of workers, and
aspirational policies to promote safe and healthy Canadian workplaces.
In terms of minimal treatment, employment standards at the federal and
provincial levels guide minimums such as pay, vacations, and overtime.
Unionized employees will refer to the standards negotiated within their
collective agreements with employers. Human rights legislation guides
protection of workers from discrimination based upon their membership
in protected groups (e.g., race, ethnicity, sex, family status, sexual
orientation, religion). Equity legislation aims to remove employment
barriers and promote equality of the members of four designated groups:
women, persons with a disability, members of visible minorities, and
Indigenous people. Privacy legislation describes the types of information
that employers can request and store about employees. HR has
responsibility for determining which pieces of legislation are applicable
to the organization, and for ensuring compliance with the minimum
standards.
To foster safe and healthy workplaces, HR should also develop policies
and procedures to guide behaviour within the organization. Some
policies are required by law, and HR must develop and implement these
required policies. Other policies help employees to meet the employer’s
expectations of them. Types of HR policies include but are not limited to
harassment and sexual harassment; attendance, leave, and breaks;
occupational health and safety; workplace violence; remote workers;
technology and social media use; substance use; and confidential
information.
Many organizations are moving toward creating a diverse, equitable, and
inclusive organizational culture, which is an HR responsibility within
organizations. This involves creating work practices and an environment
where all employees are valued and included regardless of their
differences. Current policies, systems, practices, rules, and procedures
have to be examined (and perhaps modified or eliminated) in terms of
their appropriateness for a diverse and inclusive workforce. The progress
of the diversity, equity, and inclusion effort is monitored on a systematic
basis, and corrective actions must be taken.